On March 23, the RA Administrative Court released its ruling on the suit of
Freedom of Information Center versus the administration of Nor-Nork community
of Yerevan. The NGO suit demanded to recognize the actions of the community
administration in answering to the inquiry unlawful, to commit it to providing
with necessary information, to impose a fine on the Nor-Nork community Head
David Petrosian in the amount of 50,000 AMD (around $ 130), as well as to compensate
the amount of 4,000 AMD, paid by the NGO as a state duty for addressing the
court.
On August 1, 2008 Freedom of Information Center made an inquiry to the administration
of Nor-Nork community, asking for the number and the addresses of apartments,
owned by the community, as well as for the court statistics regarding the eviction
of residents from unprivatized apartments. The community did not answer to the
inquiry and the NGO claimed the court. The hearings on the case started on January
26, 2009. In February the community of Nor-Nork provided with the requested
information, and FOI Center recalled its demand to recognize the community actions
in answering to the inquiry unlawful. On the session of March 6, the court considered
the other two demands – on fine imposing on Nor-Nork Head and on expense compensation.
On March 23, the court secured the suit partially, committing the Nor-Nork
community of Yerevan to compensating 4,000 AMD paid by FOI Center as a state
duty for addressing the court.
As the plaintiff lawyer, Karen Mejlumian, says, in the end of July and in the
beginning of August, 2008 similar inquiries were made to the 12 communities
of Yerevan by the Freedom of Information Center. The three of the communities
– Arabkir, Davitashen and Nor-Nork either provided incomplete information, or
did not answer to it. And Freedom of Information Center brought an action against
them. On December 30, 2008 the Administrative Court secured all the demands
of the NGO suit versus Arabkir community (see YPC Weekly Newsletter, January
8-15, 2009). As for the action against Davitashen community, it was withdrawn,
because the requested information was provided before the court hearings.
